Government "By the People"

It took a while to recover from the election. And then there was that pregnant period between election and inauguration. All the focus on fashion, exhausting.

So here we are back in real life. The economy has tanked, thanks to a perfect storm of greed, irresponsibility, and well... because shit happens. Our new government has prepared and is in the midst of approving a recovery and reinvestment plan designed to stimulate the economy, ostensibly loaded with projects designed to create millions of jobs and loads o' commerce.

But because no opportunity to move a personal agenda forward can go unseized, we have instead a bill loaded with programs and projects which will have no immediate (and possibly no ever) effect on the economy. What causes stimulation? Adrenaline. A shock to the system. Yes, you can invest in grammar school education, and yes, it may improve the quality of the workforce in twenty years. But does it cause the market to reverse its slide? Companies to begin investing in growth and hiring? Consumers to begin consuming again?

This past election cycle brought a revolution in participatory government. Candidates were dissected, platforms compared point-by-point. The People asked questions of the government-to-be in thousands of digital forums – and the government had no choice but to answer. We saw a true "election by the people" – WE decided on the issues that politicians needed to talk about. WE created cultural movements to which they were compelled to respond. WE finally had a platform through which every one of us could engage in the process of shaping our future.

Now here we are, in government as usual. And the voices that shaped the election are silent.

Digital America, where did you go?

On Forgiving Hollywood

I don't know about you, but I've always been irrationally irritated by celebrities telling me... well, really, anything. Anything that wasn't scripted, and directed. And edited. I'm not interested in the out-takes.

I've written about the relationship between celebrity culture and politics in the past. It's certainly a powerful thing. Will.i.am's lovely and moving ode to Barack Obama, "Yes, We Can" is celebuganda (that sounded better in my head than it looks in writing) at its finest.

So I was ready to hate on the "Don't Vote" video making the rounds on social networks this week. Another 2 minutes of preachy, uniformed, judgmental, arrogant SEAN PENNs, for god's sake.

Well, for starters, it was WAY over 2 minutes. And it was... compelling. And not preachy. And sort of... sincere. And funny. And if I weren't already registered to vote, I would have done so. Because I hate keeping Leo waiting.

Art & Understanding

Our friend Glenn Sanders has created a cool blog in celebration of political art. Called "Political Poster: The Art of the Campaign," Glenn's collecting images related to the current presidential election, posters for-and-against both tickets.

I touched on the subject of political art in a prior post, but in light of the rapidly expanding body of work related to the 2008 campaign, wanted to offer some additional thoughts on the subject.

Politically-themed art is designed to provoke; to offer ideas and stimulate thinking. To agitate on behalf of a person or position. It uses a simple visual language to communicate vast notions. It reflects culture's zeitgeist. But it also, obviously, intends to shape it.

In the excellent blog "Running Yellow Lights," its author discusses the weaknesses inherent in political art:

"Art runs into problems when it stops trying to answer questions of what values we should hold and instead answers how we should get there. Art can tell us it’s a bad thing people are poor; it cannot tell us whether the government can fix it. Art can tell us to consider divinity; it cannot tell us to support churches with the state.

"Believing art can have any impact on whether we should end a specific war or support free market capitalism misses this point entirely... Art cannot reasonably answer political questions. It can sway political questions as to the values one should fight for, such as the what and the why. Through more effective means we can answer the questions of the whether, the how, and the how much... The communicative role of art is essential and important in the way we may form values, but it should never grasp pretensions of being better than empirics and logic in defining the feasibility of the means that may emerge from the values."

A gorgeous way of saying: do not rely on the simplistic idealization of issues to form your opinions. Posters just frame the question; your actual political views should not fit on a t-shirt. The road to change is not a slogan: it requires the hard work of understanding.

When Social Networking Gets Dirty

Social networking has provided a generous playground for the cyber bully. A friend who works as CMO for a great organization called CommonSenseMedia.org – an online resource for families who are looking for kid-friendly, parent-approved content – has found she's also educating parents on what happens between kids on the web: gossip and innuendo, anonymous reputation-destruction, false identities. Bullying moves from the schoolyard to MySpace.

I recently was sent a link to a blog which has been created on behalf of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Entitled "Welcome to the PalinDrome," it purports to tell Palin's story in her own voice. I appreciate satire – a lot, actually – but this seems more like anonymous bullying than deft wielding of the "weapon of wit."

Decorated with amusing images of howling wolves, Sarah's psedoblogger waxes on cosmetic preferences (including the beer rinse which keeps one's hair shiny), possible baby names ("Cialis. Bristol just made this one up. Isn't it pretty?") and her unnamed opponent's history of "helping people in the ghetto avoid paying their electricity bills."

Yup, it's funny. But mean funny. And frankly, an unreturnable volley. The idea of assuming another's identity in order to mock them is a swell idea, but imagine its use against our current Democratic presidential candidate. Apparently it's not white men, but white trash, who are the last unprotected class.

Jay Leno... David Letterman... Okay, Craig R. Smith Speaks Out

Perhaps I should start by saying I'm not a big Leno fan. Mostly because I can't stay awake that late. But there's a curious email thread working its way around the internet, which neatly reinforced the political power of a media personality – coincidently condemning the very media that created him. The subject line in the email I received: "A Perspective by Jay Leno." Jay Leno, huh? I opened it.

First of all: it's mis-attributed. Snopes.com has seen the story credited to David Letterman as well as Leno, but its author was actually Craig R. Smith, an author and political commentator of somewhat lesser renown. But who forwards an email from Craig Smith? Hell, it sounds like an alias. Although one might have had a clue that the famous rarely bite the hand that feeds them, or at least live to tell the tale.

Attaching celebrity gives the message exponential power. Think about Yahoo! Answers, and the questions posed by personalities from Bono to Stephen Hawking to Al Gore. They attracted tens of thousands into a conversation that, had the topic been posed by me, would have been as well-read as this blog.

The article by Craig Smith is long, but well worth a read, in consideration of both the cultural cachet of fame in the political arena, as well as a gentle reminder that we should be grateful every day for what we have.

Oh – and the article's actual title?: "Made in the USA: Spoiled Brats."

Politics and the Olympics

Back to the funny papers again...

An ad agency network recently experienced a rather awkward public clash of conflicting sentiment toward China.  Two offices serve very large global clients with Olympic sponsorships.  A third has a long-standing relationship with Amnesty International.  Each produced work on behalf of their respective client – and understandably, demonstrated very different points of view on the nature of humanity.

The Olympics, despite protestations that it is an apolitical celebration of athleticism, transcending boundaries and skirmishes, petty and otherwise, is about flags.  Anthems.   Nationalism.  And beating ("smashing!" say the French swimmers) other countries.  Sounds almost... warlike... when you think about it.  Politics continues to overshadow these games, as it has many before, from Moscow to Berlin to Mexico City.

Prickly City (not to be confused with Mexico City) is a politically-conservative comic strip that runs in the LA Times.  It's theme over the past week or so has been China and the Olympics – and notably, China's relationship with Tibet.  After kicking off the series with the strip shown above, each subsequent day has featured an end panel in which one of the characters is viewed through prison bars.  

Human rights makes strange bedfellows.  Tibet: it's not just for liberals anymore.  And it's not going away because we're pretending the Olympics isn't political.

Wag the Dog

What if John Edwards secretly arranged for Russia to send troops into Georgia in order to distract from media coverage of his illicit affair?  

And damn that Fox News, for refusing to take the bait.  

Watch this great clip, in which Gregg Jarrett interviews Bonnie Erbe of PBS.  His dogged commitment to delivering a titillating piece on Edwards is impressive, as he repeatedly rebuffs Erbe's attempt to insert substance into the discussion.